Download this PDF file

The West London Medical Journal 2011 Vol 3 No 3 pp 28-32
THE CHANGING FACE OF THERAPEUTICS: AN
INTRODUCTION TO STEM CELL AND
REGENERATIVE THERAPIES
Jason Seewoodhary*
Department of Diabetes and Endocrinology
University Hospital of Wales
Heath Park
Cardiff
CF14 4XN
United Kingdom
ABSTRACT
Stem cell therapies are revolutionizing therapeutics by providing a
curative approach to diseases for which, until very recently, symptomatic
treatments were only available. This review will critically consider the
multidisciplinary role, use and implications of embryonic, adult, and induced
pluripotent stem cells. The ethical considerations that impact upon their use
will also be discussed.
KEYWORDS
Stem Cell; Embryonic Stem Cell; Adult Stem Cell; induced Pluripotent Stem
Cell; Ethics
DISCUSSION
Stem cells are primitive undifferentiated cells that have the capacity of
unlimited self-renewal without differentiation whilst retaining the potential
towards differentiation. There are three main types of stem cells: embryonic
stem cells (ES), adult stem cells, and induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS).
ES cells are derived from the inner cell mass of a developing blastocyst,
which is a five-day pre-implantation embryo, and are pluripotent, which
means they can differentiate into any cell type of endodermal, ectodermal or
mesodermal origin. However, ES cells cannot give rise to extra-embryonic
structures such as placental, amniotic or chorionic tissues.
*
Email: seewoodharyj@hotmail.com
28
THE CHANGING FACE OF THERAPEUTICS
Similar to ES cells, adult stem cells are undifferentiated cells capable of
self-renewal, but in contrast to ES cells, they are found within a specific tissue
or organ and are multipotent; they can only differentiate into more than one
cell type of a specific organ. For example, a neural stem cell can differentiate
into an astrocyte, oligodendrocyte or a neuron. Adult stem cells are
synonymously referred to as somatic or progenitor stem cells and despite the
nomenclature they can be derived from the embryo or foetus. Adult stem cells
have been isolated from different organs, such as the bone marrow, which
contains two types of adult stem cells: mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) and
haematopoietic stem cells.
In contrast to ES and adult stem cells, iPS cells are derived from nonpluripotent cells such as adult dermal fibroblasts, which have been
transformed using plasmid and viral vectors to transfer genes and transcription
factors, such as Oct3/4, Sox2, Klf4, Nanog, and Lin28 into these cells. This
functions to genetically ‘reprogramme’ cells from a differentiated nonpluripotent state to an ES cell like undifferentiated pluripotent state [1].
The main advantages of ES, adult, and iPS cells hone in on their potential
use for stem cell based regenerative therapies, with the overall aim of
repairing or replacing diseased tissues and organs. The ability to use stem cell
technology would create a potentially limitless, purified, population of
patient- and disease- specific cells, which confer a wide range of clinical
benefits. These include: understanding the pathogenesis of disease; facilitating
drug discovery; and generating cells for transplantation. These principles can
be illustrated using Parkinson’s disease (PD) as an example, where strategies
to overcome limitations of conventional symptomatic treatments have
employed stem cell based therapies. Using stem cell therapies, the depleted
dopaminergic neurons in the substantia nigra can be reconstructed by the
transplantation of grafted stem cell derived dopaminergic neurons, stimulating
local synapse formation and restoring dopaminergic neurotransmission [2].
Candidate stem cells include ES-, adult-, or iPS cells. The decision on the type
of stem cell to use rests upon an understanding of the advantages and
disadvantages associated with each type of stem cell. This will now be
discussed.
ES cells tend to ‘lead’ on most fronts in regenerative medicine due to their
broad developmental potential, which is a reflection of their pluripotent
nature. ES cells confer the advantage of being renewable, accessible to
genetic modifications, and expandable in vitro for lengthy periods. Thus ES
cells can be yielded in very high purified quantities for potential regenerative
purposes. Furthermore, ES cells are very plastic and be manipulated to
become a cell of any bodily organ. These advantages can be appreciated in a
rodent PD model, where it has been shown that transplants of undifferentiated
ES cells were able to proliferate and fully differentiate into dopaminergic
neurons [3]. However, this was off-set by the disadvantage of ES cells having
a high tumourigenic potential, which was significantly reduced when the ES
cells were pre-differentiated into dopaminergic neurons in vitro before
29
THE WEST LONDON MEDICAL JOURNAL 2011
3, 3
implantation [3]. Other potential disadvantages of ES cells, which are derived
from a donor, include transplant rejection. However, this has not yet been
reliably determined in human models of disease.
Advantages of adult stem cells include the potential to be harvested from
easily accessible organs and expanded. However, in contrast to ES cells, adult
stem cells are rarer in number in mature tissues and this is significant as large
numbers of cells are needed for stem cell replacement therapies. Similar to ES
cells, adult stem cells have the advantageous capacity to self-renew. In an
animal model of PD, adult stem cells could be expanded in vitro for a long
time and demonstrated multipotency, differentiating into important neural cell
types including dopaminergic neurons [4]. Adult stem cells offer the
advantage of having a significantly lower tumorigenic potential relative to ES
cells. However, recently, the first example of a donor-derived brain tumour
following neural stem cell therapy was reported. This suggests that neuronal
stem cells maybe involved in gliomagenesis [5]. Further research is needed to
assess the safety of the tumourigenic potential of neural stem cells. Relative
to ES cells, disadvantages of adult stem cells include lower degrees of
plasticity, expandability, and renewability, coupled with a greater
susceptibility to senescence. Furthermore, adult stem cells are invasively
harvested e.g. bone marrow aspiration to obtain MSCs.
In comparison to adult stem cells, iPS cells offer the advantage of being
more easily and non-invasively harvested. They are useful tools for drug
development, modeling diseases in vitro, and for transplantation therapies
especially if sourced autologously due to a lower potential for rejection.
Disadvantages include their potential to form tumours and a lack of long term
data on their stability [1].
Despite the potential benefits of stem cell therapy there is heated
opposition towards the role of stem cells in regenerative medicine, which
requires consideration of the ethical principles that impact upon the use of
stem cells. This will now be discussed.
The derivation of ES cell cultures involves disaggregating the blastocyst.
Thus, opponents of ES cell research argue this is unethical because it involves
the unjust killing of innocent human beings. The ethical dilemmas of such
arguments stems from different perspectives about: when does a human being
begin to exist; the moral status of human embryos; and the case of ‘doomed
embryos’, that is, spare embryos created after fertility treatment. These ethical
principles also encompass questions on whether scientists who use but do not
derive ES cells are complicit in the destruction of embryos, the permissibility
of cloning human embryos to harvest ES cells, whether there is a moral
distinction between creating embryos for research purposes and creating them
for reproductive means, and the ethics of creating human / non-human
chimeras [6].
The ethical considerations that underlie such arguments on the role and
use of ES cells can be predominantly, but not exclusively, viewed from five
perspectives.
30
THE CHANGING FACE OF THERAPEUTICS
The first is the deontological view, which is an approach that judges the
morality of the criteria that defines an embryo as human and as such
deserving of respect [7]. In contrast to deontological views, the
consequentialist approach assesses whether the righteousness of using human
ES cells for regenerative purposes is determined by its consequences, which
are a proportionate assessment of beneficence versus non-maleficence [8].
The liberal view on the use of ES cells considers whether individuality is
comparable with development. ‘Liberals’ take the view that it is only the
cultivation of individuality, which produces well developed human-beings,
which raises the questions as to what point is full moral status ascribed to an
embryo. Similarly, the gradualist approach reflects on what determines the
appropriate cut off point for embryonic research and whether this is the same
point at which full moral status is afforded to the beginning of human life. In
contrast to these philosophies, the conservative approach is based on the
ethical consideration that conception is the only clear biological point in an
embryos development [9].
Relative to ES cells the ethical considerations surrounding the impact of
adult stem cells are less involved as they do not involve disaggregating the
human blastocyst. However, the use of adult stem cells derived from a foetus
confers similar ethical dilemmas as described for ES cells.
The use of iPS cells has added a new dimension to the ethical questions in
stem cell debates, which hone in on the issues of consent, privacy, clinical
translation and intellectual property rights of iPS cells if derived for clinical
purposes. To illustrate this principle, if an iPS cell was transformed into
spermatozoa for use in reproductive medicine, what impact would this have
on donor consent, concerns about cloning and the rights of a potential child to
know its parents? The medical ethical principles of justice, autonomy,
beneficence, and non-maleficence must be given due consideration when
considering the impact of such therapy on patient care [10].
In conclusion there is an emerging body of evidence to suggest the role
and use of stem cells can potentially revolutionise clinical medicine.
However, there are considerable hurdles that must be overcome. More debate
on the ethical considerations that impact on this is needed, which may
possibly change and modernise legislation on stem cell research.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
[1] Takahashi K, Tanabe K et al. ‘Induction of pluripotent stem cells from
adult fibroblasts by defined factors.’ Cell 2007; 131(5):861-72.
[2] Takahashi J. ‘Stem cell for Parkinson’s disease.’ Expert Review of
Neurotherapeutics 2007; 7(6):667-75.
[3] Fricker-Gates RA, Gates MA. ‘Stem-cell derived dopamine neurons for
brain repair in Parkinson’s disease.’ Regenerative Medicine 2010; 5(2):26778.
[4] Gogel S, Gubernator M et al. ‘Progress and prospects: stem cells and
31
THE WEST LONDON MEDICAL JOURNAL 2011
3, 3
neurological disease.’ Gene Therapy 2011; 18(1):1-6.
[5] Amariglio N, Hirshberg A et al. ‘Donor-derived brain tumor following
neural stem cell transplantation in an ataxia telangiectasia patient.’ PLoS
Medicine 2009; 17;6(2)e:1000029.
[6] Manzar N, Manzar B et al. ‘The Ethical Dilemma of Embryonic Stem
Cell Research.’ Science and Engineering Ethics 2011 Oct 29 [Epub ahead of
print].
[7] de Wert G, Mummery C. ‘Human embryonic stem cells: research, ethics
and policy.’ Human Reproduction 2003; 18(4):672-82.
[8] Gershon D. ‘Complex political, ethical and legal issues surround research
on human embryonic stem cells.’ Nature 2003; 422(6934):928-9.
[9] Cohen CB. ‘Ethical issues in embryonic stem cell research.’ JAMA 2000;
285(111):1439.
[10] Power C, Rasko JE. ‘Will cell reprogramming resolve the embryonic
stem cell controversy? A narrative review.’ Annals of Internal Medicine 2011;
155(2):114-21.
. 32